UDC 572.026

Today, the informational presence of a public human acquires a special manifestation and realization, as it is demanded and dictated by the crisis challenges of the modern information space. It is the virtual-digital nature of interaction between people, their kind of restraint in self-limitation and self-isolation, for example, in the pandemic of COVID-19, redefines their predominant nature and focus on aggression, which greatly affects the safe coexistence of people and the survival of the whole civilization.

The demand for open virtual-digital space existed long before the global pandemic crisis and disease in the world, when only the preconditions for the emergence of new technological means of artificial intelligence, the Internet were developed and innovative forms of intensive human representation through various public images were formed. It is with the advent of the latest technical capabilities (devices, programming languages, hardware forms), techniques and technologies that virtual-digital space is fully put at the service of human nature.

New elements and functions, original meanings and forms of virtual publicity are developing in such a way that human is already characterized not only by spiritual, material or biological nature, but also by the culture of intensive computer and mobile communication, which has completely different manifestations in his/her being. We can talk about the expansion of the so-called virtual-digital Self of the public human, where the Self is a complex temporal structure of the human "I" that is constantly changing and refining itself or as an interface between individual and general, private and public. Today, virtual space (cyberspace), digital reality, as a kind of system of manifestation of the publicity phenomenon, can be considered as a popular user information platform of public representation, "where everything seems possible, but nothing is unattainable" because it is the lack of recognition in the order of importance of things before the new world of automatic reproduction, the surrender of human to their "technical counterpart" (Mishchenko & Shtretlinh, 2018, p. 76). At the same time, human at any time has only two models of possibility choice: to be separate or to be a part of a virtual-digital whole. This choice is so important and life-affirming that there are significant contradictions that human cannot yet overcome. It is at the stage of self-affirmation, which is always in demand that human has social difficulties – open aggression and conflict, as a manifestation of both – human and the whole. "Modern human is a social "I"in fact, created by the role that the individual must play and which is a subjective disguise of the objective social function of human in modern society. Modern selfishness is greed caused by frustration with the true self, the object of which is the social self" (transl. by L. V.) (Fromm, 2019, p. 121).

The psychological science made a huge contribution to the deciphering human aggression, both in individual and collective manifestations, the understanding of social contradictions as necessary and permanent components of direct communication of human him/herself. The author emphasizes that the problem of aggressive behavior and conflict communication of public human is interdisciplinary in nature and cannot be limited to the framework of psychological science. Thus, in philosophy, starting with the great ideas of Plato and Aristotle, there are several important directions in the interpretation of the concept of aggression, which helps modern researchers to more fully reveal the significance of this issue. The well-known Ukrainian researcher-conflictologist O. F. Protsenko (2000) noted that "aggression" and "aggressiveness" belong to the category of non-strict psychological concepts that do not have clear definitions in modern science. "Aggression" can be considered in the broadest context, revealing several classical approaches to it: a) anthropological and biological, first developed by well-known criminologists of the 18^th – 19^th centuries (Ferri, 2005; Lombroso, 2015), and b) actually psychological, in which a special place belongs to the psychoanalytic models of S. Freud (2020) and psychosociological theories of C. Jung (2019), K. Horney (1994), E. Fromm (2019). It is clear that psychological science alone does not give a full understanding of the concept of aggression and conflict of public human, referring only to the behavioral nature of this phenomenon and forgetting about its unique identity with other phenomena that complement this understanding. For example, the phenomenon of struggle, which is based on natural aggression, is one of the main problems of the philosophy of life (Freud, 2020; Fromm, 2019; Schopenhauer, 2013; Simmel, 2006), namely the concept of aggression, can be revealed through the latest cross-cultural concepts (Gazniuk, 2003; Vasylieva, 2019) and theories of ethos.

Departing from the psychological focus of the problem of public human aggression, we will try to explore the concept of Self as a complex function of contact in modern public space and in the virtual-digital living environment (Heemsbergen, Bowtell, & Vincent, 2021; Procter, 2021).

Purpose

In the 20 th century, the theory of Friedrich Perls, Ralph Hefferline, and Paul Goodman (1994) on the concept of the Self appears, which, according to the researchers, is only a small factor in the overall interaction "organism – environment". This concept has an important role in the development and creation of communicative meanings; it has a complex and volume nature, which is not limited only to physiological and mental. Moreover, in this sense, the Self is not synonymous with identity, if the identity is thought to be as an existing a priori. The Self is constantly changing; it is not given to a human once and for all. This is a complex temporal structure. Considering the Self in the form of areas, a kind of important centers of personality, it can be noted that these manifestations are revealed through the interaction of internal and external, where "internal" can come into contact with the "external" through a kind of intersection, potentially covering the whole world, alternating what is in the middle with what is outside. Free penetration of "internal" and "external" is allowed, which contributes to the differentiation of various areas and interaction between them.

When defining the concept of the Self phenomenon in the virtual-digital environment, it would be logical to define the concept of the public human as the main actor in this environment. Let us say that a public human is a specific person who has the highly-demanded desire of the personal "I" to be open, seeks self-realization and self-affirmation, meeting their needs. At the same time, a public human is strong-willed in his/her intentions of positioning, where positioning is an internal need, the message of creative realization of the Self and its development. That is, a public human, as a person, the separation of his/her own "I", must constantly cross the boundaries of his/her inner existence and go beyond him/herself. A human becomes public only when he/she has an urgent need, the intention to be demonstratively open to others. Under such conditions, publicity becomes a person’s emotional and volitional impulse, which is associated with his/her self-actualization, self-reflection and self-affirmation.

It is in the virtual-digital environment that a new out-of-body experience of a public human is formed. Yes, on the Internet, there is information about human, his/her biographical and physiological data, account number, archive of correspondence with others, but there is no a human him/herself, his/her true existence. With a simple touch of a computer key, a human is able to move to the right place and time in a matter of seconds, without worrying about the real travel difficulties. He/she seems to be in the playful essence all the time, showing the image of both him/herself and the demanded Other. Here, a human is in some degree protected from conflict, communicative incomprehensibility, open aggression and anger of the interlocutor, because at any moment he/she can get out of an awkward communication model and turn off the computer. Thus, a human is capable to identify him/herself with those aspirations which allow him/her to think highly of his/her own "I", tend "to a distortion towards positive authenticity… and add his/her best characteristics while describing his/her 'real Self'… It’s not enough for people to convince themselves that they have positive qualities and talents. It is usually important that others do not think of them any worse" (Kaufman, 2015, p. 293).

The concept of "true I" is interesting here, which is fully comprehended by Karen Horney (1994, p. 57). According to the researcher, the "true I" is a living, unique, personal center, which shapes human existence. K. Horney proves that there are very devastating consequences of self-alienation of the "true I", which seems entering an agreement with the devil:

…in exchange for promises, we are losing connection with our senses, desires, beliefs, forces, and the ability to feel that we ourselves are an active determining factor in our own lives. As a result of the loss of a holistic sense of self, we lose our 'soul' and are forced to find ourselves 'in hell within ourselves'. (Horney, 1994, p. 58)

Given this, the researcher is convinced that a human is able to resort to two models of creating a "true I": 1) suppressing certain features of his/her character and bringing the opposites to the fore (for example, overemphasize the ability to be kind, caring, loving, in no way showing aggression towards others or actively keeping the environment under constant control, dominate the environment); 2) maintaining a distance from others that in any case prevents conflicts (for example, highly appreciate loneliness and do not take any action, which hints at the risk of interfering in his/her personal space and draws attention to the insecure "I") (Horney, 1994, p. 58).

It should be added that the eminent American researcher A. Maslow (2010), studying models of human self-realization, was convinced that external triggers have a significant influence on what exactly is the "true I" of a human. That is, the external forms the internal, and they are correlated together in a single concept of human Self. In fact, the essence of the Self is to be the connecting core between the "I" of human and the public sphere, an intermediate link that correlates depending on the aspirations of human him/herself. A. Maslow emphasizes that human is always in the process of their Self-formation, a naturally long process. In this case, the "inner core" of human consists of "potential opportunities, not the final embodiment of the weak, vague and tender ones, which are easily silenced by learning, cultural expectations, fear, condemnation" (transl. by L. V.) (Maslow, 2010, p. 67).

Undoubtedly, for some people social media, as one of the manifestation forms of virtual-digital publicity, are the only way to contact others. But there is a kind of paradox in this environment: on the one hand, it increases the chances of a close relationship, and on the other hand, it makes it easier to avoid deep relationships. This can be explained by the thesis that it is more pleasant for a human to feel accepted by the general public than to seek a true connection with individuals. If in the real public environment, human only seeks to create a certain significance of his/her self, while in the virtual one it already exists as a copy of the ideal self: the interweaving of simulacra, the combination of everything demanded in one time and space. Thus, the virtual-digital space of escape from reality, the collage of superimposed images lead to the intense self-search and the development of the human Self. Due to the significant blurring of public-personal boundaries, the blurring of the Self, the preconditions for self-identification and understanding of the personal "I" are created.

The concept of life world and project space

E. Husserl (2010) and M. Heidegger (2010) are two pillars of phenomenology of the 20 th "life world". For E. Husserl, the life world is an ordinary, everyday world, a space of everyday conversations, contacts and interactions, a natural world that is intuitively attractive and aesthetically perceived by a human. At the same time, the life world is not only the natural environment, but also the world of people, where the Self arises as a result of interaction, contact, supporting human existence. "The life world is a background immersed in the world" (transl. by L. V.) (Mishchenko & Shtretlinh, 2018, p. 88) on which the Self process unfolds.

Studying the concept of the life world and approaching the understanding of the Self phenomenon as a conceptual interface of modern human in virtual-digital space, it is also appropriate to recall the position of the famous anthropologist H. Plessner, who argued the existence of "personal unity of life and the layer of existing being that coexists with human" (Popov, 1988, p. 128). The philosopher understands a human, first of all, as a person eccentric to the existing being. He sees in this ability to "get out of oneself" the leading essential feature. Distinguishing between the human body and the environment, the researcher names several features of this boundary: 1) the boundary is only a virtual "BETWEEN" the body and the surrounding environment, where it begins (ends). It belongs neither to the body nor to the surrounding environment, it belongs to both. In this case, the boundary is something different from the real limitation that belongs to the body as its outline, and although it does not pass "near" it, but it is something external to it, because the transition to another, although provided by limitation, but does not belong to its essence, that is, it is not necessary for the existence of the body itself; 2) the boundary of the real belongs to the body, which not only provides a limited by its outline with the transition to the external environment, but also makes this transition in its limitation, it is this transition, which is why it becomes available here (Popov, 1988, p. 148).

If we remember that the spirit is a sphere, which is given together with the eccentric positional form, it becomes clear the primary paradox in the life situation of human: he/she (as a subject) oppose him/herself and the world and at the same time is removed from this opposition.

It is a mistake to think of 'individuals' as primitives united in social relations, because there is no doubt that the existence of 'individuals' is possible only in complex societies… 'Person' is a reflection of the interpersonal whole, and 'personality' is the best learned as a social attitude in the structure of the Self. (transl. by L. V.) (Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman, 1994, p. 11)

In the world against the world, in oneself and against oneself – none of the opposite definitions has an advantage over the other, the abyss, the empty "between", "here" and "there", which remain "through". Thus, in a human finds him/herself in his/her living space, positions and represents. He/she seems to create an indirect (Self) between him/herself and the environment, while not dissolving in it entirely, just because he/she stays in it. Overcoming the physical sensory boundary, the goal, the direction (ikigai) appears. Only under such conditions it makes sense to assert that "I" is in contact with the Other, and it is the contact that becomes a function of this boundary. In turn, "personality" is assimilation, the image of the Self, which tries to combine experience, decisions, agreements, physical capabilities and limitations. That is why a human has a sense of whom he/she really is. The function of this conditional boundary is to provide autonomy and self-knowledge (Kaufman, 2018, p. 295).

Let us turn to the concept of "project space", which is also important for understanding the concept of virtual-digital Self of public human. It should be noted that the phenomenon of "project space" has been studied empirically in the context of the history of the art industry, but it can also be considered through philosophical research in relation to understanding the nature of public human. In the works of Heidegger, the philosophical concept of the project is detached from the context of art, combining with the structure of human existence as "being-in-the-world", "being-here" (Dasein). Heidegger thinks existentially and uses Entwurf, which "has not only the connotation of a theological structure that is aimed at the ultimate goal or movement, in which this goal moves, but also "throwing" of something (werfen)" (Mishchenko & Shtretlinh, 2018, p. 109). It follows from here that the concept of "thrownness", which together with the projection, is one of the four structures that he identifies in the position of Dasein. Thus, Dasein (according to Heidegger) is understood as "throwing the projection". Being thrown, it projects its opportunities. In other words, we are essentially the beings of the future. The project space recognizes this future dimension as an opportunity. It is a space for the presentation or display of the existence of "I" possibilities through the individual stages of projects, which become the subjects of new forms of the spatial organization, striving for something ideal – a project in the making.

Contradiction as an internal protest of public human

Contradiction is a necessary and common feature of any entity or phenomenon. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that the essence of a public human does not contain any specific contradictions, but has contradictions in general, because the presence of such contradictions in the living space is not something permanent and unchanging. As O. F. Protsenko (2000, p. 38), the modern Ukrainian philosopher notes, the contradiction is the opposite phenomenon of interaction, which has certain characteristics: 1) unity, interdependence of the parties; 2) mutual exclusion, denial of opposite parties; 3) their interpenetration. According to the researcher, the unity of the opposites exists as long as this contradiction exists. As soon as this contradiction completes its development, is resolved, ceases to exist – the unity of opposites disappears. The solution of the contradiction, as a rule, leads to the formation of a new quality with its new opposites and new unity. Interesting is the researcher’s opinion that the unity of opposites reflects the organic connection that exists between such phenomena, trends that, on the one hand, assume, condition, and on the other hand – deny, exclude each other. In fact, each of the opposites of contradiction in itself is a contradiction, the inner unity of itself and its opposite, where contradiction and the struggle of opposites is the common essence of each opposition. This means that no matter what opposition we take, it cannot be absolutely identical with itself or its opposite, much less with the whole contradiction. Thus, contradictions are a necessary condition for the movement of relations between opposing parties and to preserve the whole. This thesis emphasizes the idea of the aggressive nature of the public environment, which is constantly changing and taking new forms of manifestation (Khmel, 2021). The parties to the contradiction, being constantly open to each other, are not only united, but also qualitatively different from each other, so if one of them is aimed at preserving this unity, inhibiting further progress, the other – at eliminating this unity. This process leads to the development of everything new, where the phenomenon of struggle forms counteraction. It can occur only where there is a contradiction. At the same time, there is a necessary connection between the internal and the external in the contradiction, where the external and the internal are identical, when the former is considered from the point of view of the phenomenon, and the latter from the point of view of the essence. Fixation of external and internal relations becomes possible only when the manifestation of the essence of the object itself is traced. The parties to this contradiction interpenetrate, mutually condition and contradict each other as inseparable moments of the whole and the Self of each of them.

Self as an interpenetrating entity

Having comprehended the concept of contradiction, we turn to the conceptual understanding of the phenomenon of Self and its manifestation in human nature. Comprehending this task, we give an example. Thus, in The Republic, Plato (2017) presents two images of a human living in a cave and looking at the world around him through the flicker of reflections on the cave walls, imagining its forms and manifestations. It was Plato, and later I. Kant (1964), who divided the world into two components: 1) the real world – noumena – "thing in itself", in which our mind forms the ability not to contemplate, but only to combine the data of contemplation in its experience; 2) the world, which is perceived due to sensations – phenomena. If we directly apply this division of the world to the sphere of human relations and public communication, we can make an assumption that the contact with Others does not make sense, because there is a kind of distortion of this contact – there are only our feelings and projections on these feelings. Such an understanding makes contact meaningless at all. In addition, referring to Plato’s theory, one can argue that human is a kind of isolated in his/her own cave, and the people he/she interacts with, loves or fights with are shadows on the walls of his/her cave. This is an absurd theory, because it cannot solve the basic question of the philosophy of life: how does one mind unmistakably come into contact and interact with another and find understanding? This problem can be overcome from the standpoint of the Self concept, although the solution will be quite extraordinary. It is known that the concept of understanding the phenomenon of Self argues that this phenomenon cannot be completely separated from the Other, that one is always a condition of the Other.

The conclusion … is that our consciousnesses are not so independent … Our consciousnesses are not separate from each other or isolated, and we are not the only owners of our consciousness. Consciousness arises from what is in constant interaction and dialogue with another consciousness… (Stern, 2003, p. 33)

That is, a human can come into real contact with the Other, because he/she is always part of what the Other is. Thus, it can be argued that the experience at the boundary, which includes daily self-determination of understanding oneself and the world and is the so-called "transcendent ego": "I may be wrong about what I know about you, but no more and no less than I can be wrong about what I know about myself! Only distancing and deception can be the cause of such mistakes" (transl. by L. V.) (Philippson, 2014, p. 201).

The existential position of J.-P. Sartre is also interested. It denies the Other: "I become myself, not the Other to whom the "I" is connected, but this means that "I" also need to distance myself from the implicit, preverbal connection with the Other and from interacting with the Other" (transl. by L. V.) (Philippson, 2014, p. 214). Such a division serves as an action, not a necessity. If we continue to perceive the Other in these reflections in Kantian terms, it will be logical to understand why other people may understand us better than we.

Thus, it can be argued that the Self of public human is an interpenetrating substance that is created by human him/herself. It has its own creative potential; it arises in the same meaning due to the living space and the existential denial of dissimilarity. It is an open opportunity to create change and change yourself.

Originality

Originality lies in understanding the concept of the Self phenomenon of the public human in his/her virtual/digital essence as demanded demonstration-project space "BETWEEN" aggressiveness and harmony, which opens a new direction in the field of anthropological philosophy. The author proves that in the public environment Self of public human becomes one of the main determinants of human life, forms a kind of complex relationship "human I – publicity – human We – the living space of the Other". Virtual-digital publicity appears as a gallery of images of communicative game and search for new forms of the personal Self, where personification, distance is abolished and there is a project space, artificial openness. Here a person feels his/her involvement in a certain integrity, which increases the feeling of self-protection, self-confidence, significance and meaning of life. At the same time, the undeveloped, simplified Self forms primitive, aggressive, conflicting forms of public communication in the virtual-digital space.

Conclusions

The Self of the public human does not completely "dissolve" in a separate ontological basis, but is the basis for the formation of personal "I". Here, only complicity in the existence of others reveals the meaning of one’s own existence and the creative development of the Self. This requires considerable effort – skills, competencies that are able to form the required successful self-identification of human without aggression and conflict. At the same time, the loss of the practice of subjectivity realization threatens to immerse the human "I" in excessive general collectivity (for example, the Condorcet paradox), which can destroy the manifestations of personal responsibility. The absolute form of publicity – complicity in the virtual-digital space can be assessed only as an ideal reality. The demarcation line between public and private runs only in the imagination of the human, who seeks or does not seek to join the common. Virtual-digital space draws a human into a large-scale quasi-public performance, where a human feels involved in the whole, but at the same time activates his/her own aggressive "I". Artificiality through naturality is the main thesis of the new virtual publicity. Here, due to active symbiosis with technology, a human is too actively involved in the symbolic struggle for his/her own Self. It can be argued that the virtual-digital Self of public human becomes one of the main determinants of living space, forms a popular set of complementarities. Modern virtual publicity is becoming an accessible universal but controversial way of constructing the Self of human, touching on his/her certain existential manifestations and aggressive nature.

REFERENCES

Ferri, E. (2005). Ugolovnaya sotsiologiya. Moscow: INFRA. (in Russian)

Francesetti, G., & Spagnuolo Lobb, M. (2013). Beyond the Pillars of Hercules. A Gestalt Therapy Perspective of Psychotic Experiences. In G. Francesetti, M. Gecele, & J. Roubal (Eds.), Gestalt Therapy in Clinical Practice. From Psychopathology to the Aesthetics of Contact (pp. 393-431). Milano: FrancoAngeli. (in English)

Freud, S. (2020). Maloe sobranie sochineniy (Y. Kogan, Trans.). Moscow: Azbuka. (in Russian)

Fromm, E. (2019). Escape from Freedom (M. Yakovliev, Trans.). Kharkiv: Family Leisure Club. (in Ukrainian)

Gazniuk, L. (2003). Somatychne buttia personalnoho svitu osobystosti: Monohrafiia. Kharkiv: KhDAFK. (in Ukrainian)

Heemsbergen, L., Bowtell, G., & Vincent, J. (2021). Conceptualising Augmented Reality: From virtual divides to mediated dynamics. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 27(3), 830-846. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521989514 (in English)

Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and Time. State University of New York Press. (in English)

Horney, K. (1994). Self-analysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. (in English)

Husserl, E. (2010). Kartezianskie razmyshleniya (V. I. Molchanov, Trans.). Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt. (in Russian)

Jung, C. G. (2019). Aion: Beitrage zur Symbolik des Selbst (K. Kotiuk, Trans.). Lviv: Astroliabiia. (in Ukrainian)

Kant, I. (1964). Sochineniya (Vol. 3). Moscow: Mysl. (in Russian)

Kaufman, S. B. (2015). Ungifted: Intelligence redefined. New York: Вasic Books. (in English)

Kaufman, S. B. (2018). Twice Exceptional: Supporting and Educating Bright and Creative Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190645472.001.0001 (in English)

Khmel, I. (2021). Humanization of Virtual Communication: from Digit to Image. Philosophy and Cosmology, 27, 126-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/27/9 (in English)

Lea, D., & Bradbery, J. (2020). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (10th ed.). Oxford University Press. (in English)

Lombroso, C. (2015). Genialnost i pomeshatelstvo (G. Tetyushinova, Trans.). St. Petersburg: Azbuka. (in Russian)

Maslow, A. H. (2010). Toward a psychology of being. Martino Fine Books. (in English)

Mishchenko, K., & Shtretlinh, S. (Eds.). (2018). Rukhlyvyi prostir: Mizhdystsyplinarna antropolohiia. Kyiv: TVO "ART KNYHA". (in Ukrainian)

Perls, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1994). Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality. Gestalt Journal Press. (in English)

Philippson, P. (2014). The Self and the Skin. In B. O’Neill & D. Bloom (Eds.), The New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy in the 21st Century: An Anthology of Published Writings since 2000 (pp. 199-218). Ravenwood Press. (in English)

Plato. (2017). Derzhava (D. Koval, Trans.). Kyiv: Oriientyr. (in Ukrainian)

Polster, E. (1988). Every person’s life is worth a novel. W. W. Norton & Company. (in English)

Popov, Y. N. (Ed). (1988). Problema cheloveka v zapadnoy filosofii: Perevody. Moscow: Progress. (in Russian)

Procter, L. (2021). I Am/We Are: Exploring the Online Self-Avatar Relationship. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 45(1), 45-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859920961041 (in English)

Protsenko, O. F. (2000). Bahatovymirnist strukturnoi modeli sotsialnoho konfliktu. Naukovi zapysky Kharkivskoho viiskovoho universytetu. Seriia "Sotsialna filosofiia, pedahohika, psykholohiia", VII, 35-42. (in Ukrainian)

Schopenhauer, A. (2013). Mysli (F. Chernigovets, Trans.). Kharkov: Folio. (in Russian)

Simmel, G. (2006). Izbrannye raboty. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr. (in Ukrainian)

Stern, D. N. (2003). On the Other Side of the Moon: The Import of Implicit Knowledge for Gestalt Therapy. In M. S. Lobb & N. Amendt-Lyon (Eds.), Creative License (pp. 21-35). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6023-7_3 (in English)

Vasylieva, L. (2019). Liudyna publichna v kultur-komunikatyvnomu prostori suchasnosti. Kharkiv: Machulin. (in Ukrainian)

LIST OF REFERENCE LINKS

Ферри Э. Уголовная социология. Москва : ИНФРА, 2005. 658 с.

Francesetti G., Spagnuolo Lobb M. Beyond the Pillars of Hercules. A Gestalt Therapy Perspective of Psychotic Experiences. Gestalt Therapy in Clinical Practice. From Psychopathology to the Aesthetics of Contact / ed. by G. Francesetti, M. Gecele, J. Roubal. Milano : FrancoAngeli, 2013. P. 393–431.

Фрейд З. Малое собрание сочинений / пер. Я. Коган. Москва : Азбука, 2020. 608 с.

Фромм Е. Втеча від свободи / пер. М. Яковлєва. Харків : Клуб сімейного дозвілля, 2019. 275 с.

Газнюк Л. М. Соматичне буття персонального світу особистості : монографія. Харків : ХДАФК, 2003. 356 с.

Heemsbergen L., Bowtell G., Vincent J. Conceptualising Augmented Reality: From virtual divides to mediated dynamics. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 2021. Vol. 27. Iss. 3. P. 830–846. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521989514

Heidegger M. Being and Time. State University of New York Press, 2010. 512 p.

Horney K. Self-analysis. New York :W. W. Norton & Company, 1994. 280 p.

Гуссерль Э. Картезианские размышления / пер. с нем. В. И. Молчанова. Москва : Академический проект, 2010. 229 с.

Юнг К. Г. Aion: Нариси щодо символіки самості / пер. К. Кoтюк. Львів : Астролябія, 2019. 432 c.

Кант И. Сочинения : в 6 т. Москва : Мысль, 1964. T. 3. 799 с.

Kaufman S. B. Ungifted: Intelligence redefined. New York : Вasic Books, 2015. 432 p.

Kaufman S. B. Twice Exceptional: Supporting and Educating Bright and Creative Students with Learning Difficulties. New York : Oxford University Press, 2018. 398 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190645472.001.0001

Khmel I. Humanization of Virtual Communication: from Digit to Image. Philosophy and Cosmology. 2021. Vol. 27. P. 126–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/27/9

Lea D., Bradbery J. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 10th ed. Oxford University Press, 2020.

Ломброзо Ч. Гениальность и помешательство / пер. Г. Тетюшинова. Санкт-Петербург : Азбука, 2015. 352 с.

Maslow A. H. Toward a psychology of being. Martino Fine Books, 2010. 228 p.

Рухливий простір: міждисциплінарна антропологія / за ред. К. Міщенко, С. Штретлінг. Київ : ТВО "АРТ КНИГА", 2018. 212 с.

Perls F., Hefferline R., Goodman P. Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality. Gestalt Journal Press, 1994.

Philippson, P. The Self and the Skin. The New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy in the 21st Century: An Anthology of Published Writings since 2000 / ed. by B. O’Neill, D. Bloom. Ravenwood Press, 2014. P. 199–218.

Платон. Держава / пер. Д. Коваль. Київ : Орієнтир, 2017. 336 с.

Polster E. Every person’s life is worth a novel. W. W. Norton & Company, 1988.

Проблема человека в западной философии : переводы / общ. ред. Ю. Н. Попова. Москва : Прогресс, 1988. 552 с.

Procter L. I Am/We Are: Exploring the Online Self-Avatar Relationship. Journal of Communication Inquiry. 2021. Vol. 45. Iss. 1. P. 45–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859920961041

Проценко О. Ф. Багатовимірність структурної моделі соціального конфлікту. Наукові записки Харківського військового університету. Серія "Соціальна філософія, педагогіка, психологія". 2000. Вип. VІІ. С. 35–42.

Шопенгауэр А. Мысли / пер. Ф. Черниговец. Харьков : Фолио, 2013. 272 с.

Зиммель Г. Избранные работы. Киев : Ника-Центр, 2006. 440 с.

Stern D. N. On the Other Side of the Moon: The Import of Implicit Knowledge for Gestalt Therapy. Creative License / ed. by M. S. Lobb, N. Amendt-Lyon. Springer, 2003. P. 21–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6023-7_3

Васильєва Л. Людина публічна в культур-комунікативному просторі сучасності. Харків : Мачулін, 2019. 392 с.

Л. А. ВАСИЛЬЄВА^1*